No-one should have to experience discrimination

The Non-discrimination Act lays down provisions on the prohibition of discrimination, the prohibition of discriminatory job advertising and the employer's obligation to promote equality.

The Act defines the bases for discrimination: age, origin, nationality, language, religion, belief, opinion, political activity, trade union activity, family relationships, state of health, disability and sexual orientation.

The occupational safety and health authority monitors the realisation of equality both on the initiative of employees and on its own initiative.

In 2024, the Regional State Administrative Agency received 210 enforcement requests related to discrimination in employment, which resulted in 109 inspections.

In about a third of the inspections, the employer was considered to have acted in a discriminatory manner. Most of the grounds were health-related reasons. In addition, there were several cases based on origin, nationality or language and other personal characteristics.

Case 1: Discrimination on the basis of nationality

A foreign employee reported that they had worked long hours and had been paid in cash. The pay was significantly lower than what they should have been paid according to the generally applicable collective agreement. The individual had demanded lawful pay and after this their employment had been terminated.

Furthermore, the employer had sent offensive image messages and made jokes about nationality and origin. The employer was unable to refute the presumption of discrimination. The employee had been discriminated against because they had demanded that their pay be paid correctly.

In addition, the employer had subjected the employee to offensive behaviour due to the individual’s origin. The employer was given instructions on violation of the prohibition of discrimination.

In most cases, the employee felt that some form of discrimination had affected, for example, changes in their work tasks, the allocation of work shifts, or the terms of their employment.

Sometimes an employee felt that the planned changes were discriminatory, but a mere subjective experience of discrimination is not enough to give rise to a suspicion of discrimination and does not lead to investigation. Sometimes an employee may feel that they have been discriminated against on the basis of their opinion, but this is not an opinion as referred to in the Non-discrimination Act.

In less than half of the inspections carried out, the employer was able to prove that the employee had not been discriminated against. Some of the inspections brought no facts to light to suggest that the employer had violated the prohibition of discrimination. 

Case 2: Dismissal because of state of health

The employee suspected that the employer had violated the prohibition of discrimination by terminating their employment relationship on the basis of the individual’s state of health.

The employee had had an accident, which had resulted in them being on sick leave for over a year before their employment relationship was terminated. The employee had undergone various forms of rehabilitation in occupational health care in order to restore their work capability. According to the employer, the employee's work capability had been assessed in several occupational health consultations before the employment relationship was terminated. Efforts had been made to adapt the employee's tasks, and options such as working time arrangements and remote work had been offered.

The possibility of alternative tasks had also been mapped out. However, the support measures were insufficient and the employee's work capability had been considered to have decreased substantially and permanently. The inspection found that even though the employment relationship was terminated due to state of health, there were grounds for justifying the different treatment. This being the case, the employer was not considered to have violated the prohibition of discrimination. 

Sometimes the employer had also had a justification for different treatment in accordance with the Non-discrimination Act. In addition, the employer has taken measures to eliminate harassment.

Case 3: Harassment between employees

According to the employee, several other employees had spoken inappropriately about the individual’s origin, nationality and religion. One of the supervisors had been present at one event when the harassment occurred.

The employee was considered to have been subjected to inappropriate and offensive behaviour, which created an aggressive and hostile atmosphere. After the employee went on sick leave, the employer became aware of the incidents. The employer began to investigate the matter. There were some inaccuracies in the reports. The employee was on sick leave, which meant that not everything could be confirmed.

However, the employer reminded the staff about appropriate work behaviour and organised training to prevent discrimination. The inspection found that although the employee had been subjected to harassment based on grounds of discrimination, the employer had taken measures within its power to eliminate the harassment.

Particularly in the case of dismissals for economic or production-related reasons, it is sometimes necessary to assess whether there has been any discriminatory basis, e.g. related to age. 

Case 4: Discrimination against older people

The employee suspected that they had been dismissed on the basis of their age. The employer terminated the employee's employment relationship on financial and production-related grounds.

According to the employee, following change negotiations at the workplace, the employer targeted dismissals solely at the oldest employees. During the change negotiations, the employees were assigned roles on the basis of which the dismissals were targeted. It turned out that only older people had been assigned these roles.

The employer cited poor profitability, but the report was contradictory. The inspector found that the employer's report did not disprove the presumption of discrimination that had arisen, so the employer was given instructions with regard to violating the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of age.

In order to ensure that workplaces have guidelines for various practices, legislation now provides more detailed guidance on this matter.

From 1 June 2025 onwards, employers must ensure that the conclusions of the assessment of the equality situation at the workplace are recorded in the equality plan. 

The equality plan must be drawn up in cooperation with the staff or their representatives. 

Author works at TEK as an employment lawyer.